Ask Matty: July 15, 2014 Edition

[slb_exclude] Logo[/slb_exclude]

This is the last round of questions we will have before San Diego Comic-Con, and today we get some insight on production strategy, the 2014 rollout, and outlook on future figures.

Pop Critica: 
Should the Masters of the Universe Classics get a re-branding for 2016, would Mattel consider re-using the 1980’s packaging for this relaunch?

That is certainly one direction we could go. At this point 2016 is way too far off to many any comments. Our focus is on selling in the 2015 line!

Pop Critica: 
Curiously, why wasn’t Imp given a flight stand?

His feet were too small for a hole per safety regulations.

Pop Critica: 
How soon can we know about additional non-sub items for 2015? 2013 and 2014 surprised people with Club FilMation and Club Etheria Mini-subs. With 2015 being the most packed and expensive year yet, can you say anything yet about other surprises coming our way that we should budget for now?

Should 2015 go through, we could potentially, hypothetically, reveal non sub items all year. Usually we wrap up reveals for the current year at SDCC. For example, at SDCC this year we will reveal all remaining sub and non sub items for 2014.

Pop Critica: 
Has it been worked out how Sssqueeze’s arms will be handled? Will Sssqueeze have swappable arms like Trap Jaw or just the default long arms?

At this time we do not have a Sssqueeze figure to announce so there isn’t anything specific to comment on.

Pop Critica: 
Many Classics customers feel that if the action feature alters the figure’s aesthetics too much, they would prefer not see it included (e.g.: giving Double Mischief two heads or a two-faced head that is turned non-mechanically). Originally, we were told that Classics figures would have an “homage” to the original action features. At what part of the process are action features decided upon, and whether or not they are feasible to translate appropriately for production? With the Horsemen? Design?

While there isn’t any “one rule”, for Classics, we have done our best to replicate vintage action figure features when possible when it does not break up a sculpt with a lever or push button like 200X had. Mekanek is a great example where a snap on neck took the place of a fully tool’d torso with an inner mechanical feature that would have been very expensive. For Double Mischief specifically; two completely different heads would have been cost prohibited due to the large size and deco needed for her hair and helmet. We could not afford to include two essentially “oversized” heads on one basic figure. The turning feature, which was also used on Man-E-Faces was our solution.

Advertisement ▼

  • sumellisock

    It’s not like they could have made a stand for Imp that needed no holes for him to plug. (either a clip on stand or a stand molded to fit beneath his body like the female Barbie Doll stands that balance the dolls by the crotch.)

    Also, the Bovine Fecal Matter is strong on the Double Mischief answer.
    Alternate Faceplates, Two heads one Helmet (a reverse Vykron maneuver) The possibilities were more than what they did. (too late to think about those since she’s been arriving to folks in these past few days)

    • I agree there should have been so type of stand solution included with Imp. Something. I would have taken the Ghostbusters Slimer stand and created an attachment on it to clip around the waist. Since Hordak was a repaint, I think we really deserved a stand for Imp.

      As far as Double-Trouble, I think this was a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation for them. In order to continue the feature they created for MEF, they decided to go with the barrel head. If they hadn’t we’d be complaining. Unfortunately, this look doesn’t lend well to the female face so we’re questioning the design choice. Again, I think hindsight is 20/20 on this one. I’m not a fan of how she turned out, but I get why they did what they did.